What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

USA Shootings (4 Viewers)

Gunviolencearchive

How many homeless pipe beatings have we had this year? Or any year? How many deaths by exorcism in this decade? Look at how many people are shot and killed. We can simply do better than we are, and we can do that without a gun ban. 

Seems we haven’t had much gun legislation since congress got back from their summer vacation. There was a meeting with the NRA, wonder if Trump said “don’t worry, no one will be talking about gun control after the break, believe me. I’ve been up to my elbows in corruption and Rudy will be going on TV.”

 
Mass shootings barely register any more.  Kansas City added to the list.   

Go ahead and defend it, gun nuts.

 
parasaurolophus said:
So wait. You think that only one guy was out there using a gun? So even though these guys knew each other and were out hunting in a group, you think only one of them was using a rifle? And you are chastising others for making assumptions based on the article? 
Click to expand...
when deer season archery only is open .... using a rifle to shoot at a deer is illegal, its poaching. 

I did not read of the group how many was in it, were they all poaching, were some bowhunting and others not ..... did you get those details ? I did not, what I can conclude is that the person who had the rifle in their hands was trying to illegally kill a deer - poaching, out of season. 

 
KCitons said:
4 homeless men killed in brutal overnight rampage in New York City, police say

No gun necessary. 

Would this be classified as a mass assault?
Click to expand...
the problem isn't violence or people .... ask -fish

the problem is assault pipes .... ban pipes ..... attack this exactly as -fish and others would attack guns, right ?  or .... ignore it

Two witnesses told officers that a man dressed with a black jacket and black pants repeatedly struck one of the victims in the head with a metal object, according to Hughes.

Shortly afterward, authorities "observed a male fitting the description carrying a metal object."

Hughes said officers took the man into custody and "recovered the metal pipe without further incident."

 
Snorkelson said:
How many homeless pipe beatings have we had this year? Or any year? How many deaths by exorcism in this decade? Look at how many people are shot and killed. We can simply do better than we are, and we can do that without a gun ban. 
Click to expand...
oh yes !!!!  expand .... and lets look at at how people die in general , not just with guns, pipes and exorcism's ..... then, attack the things that are the highest causes of death and work our way down figuring out how to simply be better

FYI semi-auto rifles are way, way, WAY down the list ........... -fish knows it too

 
Stealthycat said:
oh yes !!!!  expand .... and lets look at at how people die in general , not just with guns, pipes and exorcism's ..... then, attack the things that are the highest causes of death and work our way down figuring out how to simply be better

FYI semi-auto rifles are way, way, WAY down the list ........... -fish knows it too
Click to expand...
Serious question: why don’t you use a slingshot or blow gun or ninja stars when you hunt or shoot pests/varmints?

 
McJose said:
Serious question: why don’t you use a slingshot or blow gun or ninja stars when you hunt or shoot pests/varmints?
Click to expand...
Blow Guns are only good really with poison, illegal in the US. Ninja Stars I'm uncertain on the legality, although I'd think they would be very good at wounding, poor at killing. Sling Shots too.

My weapon of choice hunting is either my Zipper recurve (original Bob Thompson) or Xpedition Xplorer compound. I can kill anything in North America with it. That said .... if I'm on the ground, and after AK brown bear? I'd like to have a big revolver handy just in case. If I'm wanting top protect my home from intruders? I don't want to nock, draw, hold, and try to find my peep in the middle of the night for a 1 shot attempt at defense. 

That's the way it is with all my tools, I use them what they're best suited for. An AR15 is a great home defense gun and larger caliber great deer/hog etc guns as well. They're semi-auto rifles - nothing more. Don't let the zealots fool ya

 
KarmaPolice said:
No, nobody is shocked to think about that and nobody thinks that people can only use guns to harm people.  
Click to expand...
but in the same breath, only semi-automatic rifles are targeted as a "solution" ........... which isn't reasonable or logical nor does it address the core problem

 
Stealthycat said:
but in the same breath, only semi-automatic rifles are targeted as a "solution" ........... which isn't reasonable or logical nor does it address the core problem
Click to expand...
actually, it's you rejecting incremental solutions that is being illogical.  in fact, nearly every post you make is based on either a logical fallacy, a deflection or a lie.

 
-fish- said:
actually, it's you rejecting incremental solutions that is being illogical.  in fact, nearly every post you make is based on either a logical fallacy, a deflection or a lie.
Click to expand...
incremental solutions ..... take the guns from 15-30 million American's to keep 2-3% of violence from using those semi-auto rifles (but lets not realize they'll just use handguns instead)

that's not a solution - that's an agenda, and a crazy one

 
Stealthycat said:
incremental solutions ..... take the guns from 15-30 million American's to keep 2-3% of violence from using those semi-auto rifles (but lets not realize they'll just use handguns instead)

that's not a solution - that's an agenda, and a crazy one
Click to expand...
Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after?  Try telling the truth and not changing the subject.

 
-fish- said:
actually, it's you rejecting incremental solutions that is being illogical.  in fact, nearly every post you make is based on either a logical fallacy, a deflection or a lie.
Click to expand...
This sounds like an admission to an agenda. 

-fish- said:
Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after?  Try telling the truth and not changing the subject.
Click to expand...
The difference is there were no gun buybacks during the last assault weapons ban. 

You're not comparing apples to oranges. And again shows an admission of an agenda. 

 
-fish- said:
Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after?  Try telling the truth and not changing the subject.
Click to expand...
truth ?

there are other things at play - The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment didn't it? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Studies have shown the ban has had little effect in overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, or the lethality of gun crimes.

A 2017 review found that the ban did not have a significant effect on firearm homicides.[27]

A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[28] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives".[29][30]

A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[31]

In 2013, Christopher S. Koper, a criminology scholar, reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He stated that the ban did not seem to affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[32]

 
KarmaPolice said:
No, it's not "only" semi-auto rifles that are targeted as a solution.  
Click to expand...
then you are diving into -fish's zealot mentality .... incremental bans, removal, confiscations etc ........... and addressing the violence that's the core of it all? handguns? pffffhhhh   too hard to do that, its much easier to attack law abiding gun owners isn't it ?

 
Stealthycat said:
truth ?

there are other things at play - The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment didn't it? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Studies have shown the ban has had little effect in overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, or the lethality of gun crimes.

A 2017 review found that the ban did not have a significant effect on firearm homicides.[27]

A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[28] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives".[29][30]

A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[31]

In 2013, Christopher S. Koper, a criminology scholar, reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He stated that the ban did not seem to affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[32]
Click to expand...
1.  It was not a ban.  Nobody but you ever says it was a ban.

2.  Fatalities from mass shootings decreased from the decade before and they increased after it ended.  That was the question.  None of what you posted contradicts that.   

Not answering the question asked is deflection.   Why do all of your posts contain either lies, deflection or logical fallacies?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish- said:
1.  It was not a ban.  Nobody but you ever says it was a ban.

2.  Fatalities from mass shootings decreased from the decade before and they increased after it ended.  That was the question.  None of what you posted contradicts that.   

Not answering the question asked is deflection.   Why do all of your posts contain either lies, deflection or logical fallacies.
Click to expand...
I was going by the common naming of it - see link

You like studies and such .,.. I posted information that says the "assault weapons ban" really made no difference at all ............... why won't you discuss that? You clearly said " Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after? "

it didn't

so now where are you at with that ? 

 
Stealthycat said:
then you are diving into -fish's zealot mentality .... incremental bans, removal, confiscations etc ........... and addressing the violence that's the core of it all? handguns? pffffhhhh   too hard to do that, its much easier to attack law abiding gun owners isn't it ?
Click to expand...
Search every page in this thread.   Find any time where I advocated for a ban or confiscation.   Why do you constantly lie?

 
Stealthycat said:
I was going by the common naming of it - see link

You like studies and such .,.. I posted information that says the "assault weapons ban" really made no difference at all ............... why won't you discuss that? You clearly said " Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after? "

it didn't

so now where are you at with that ? 
Click to expand...
I asked a specific question.  You didn't answer it.   Lies, deflection and logical fallacies are all you have.   

 
-fish- said:
****'s Sporting Goods destroyed $5 million worth of assault rifles rather than sell them to the public.  I wonder how they knew what to destroy?  
Click to expand...
It makes me laugh, the amount of people who are still upset with ****'s and refuse to buy anything from them now.  I honestly had no idea they even sold guns until they decided to stop selling them.  They act as if their rights were taken away because a business decided not to sell something anymore.

 
-fish- said:
1.  It was not a ban.  Nobody but you ever says it was a ban.

2.  Fatalities from mass shootings decreased from the decade before and they increased after it ended.  That was the question.  None of what you posted contradicts that.   

Not answering the question asked is deflection.   Why do all of your posts contain either lies, deflection or logical fallacies?
Click to expand...
1. You do not absorb material well.  If no one else called it a ban why is it called a ban in the Wikipedia article?

"The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition"

The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on September 13, 1994,

Studies have shown the ban has had little effect in overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, or the lethality of gun crimes

 
Stealthycat said:
then you are diving into -fish's zealot mentality .... incremental bans, removal, confiscations etc ........... and addressing the violence that's the core of it all? handguns? pffffhhhh   too hard to do that, its much easier to attack law abiding gun owners isn't it ?
Click to expand...
None of your post has anything to do with what I said.  I said nobody, or at least the people you are talking to in here, are suggesting to only do that.  Also, most you are interacting with are for gun bans, yet you keep posting that junk.  

 
-fish- said:
I asked a specific question.  You didn't answer it.   Lies, deflection and logical fallacies are all you have.   
Click to expand...
you refuse to answer almost all questions - deflect, deny, change the subject, .... and everyone see's it

-fish- said:
****'s Sporting Goods destroyed $5 million worth of assault rifles rather than sell them to the public.  I wonder how they knew what to destroy?  
Click to expand...
a liberal told them what to destroy probably

idiotic action .... but some liberals are happy. Hope they did it right or they broke federal laws

 
KarmaPolice said:
No, it's not "only" semi-auto rifles that are targeted as a solution.  
Click to expand...


KarmaPolice said:
None of your post has anything to do with what I said.  I said nobody, or at least the people you are talking to in here, are suggesting to only do that.  Also, most you are interacting with are for gun bans, yet you keep posting that junk.  
Click to expand...


we've talked around some on addressing violence ..... but almost always it reverts back to more regulations, restrictions, bans and even confiscations on law abiding gun owners and right now, specifically, semi-auto rifles that are rarely used in violence

its absolutely has to do with what you said - look at -fish ..... wanting to talk about the assault weapons ban and them totally ignore that many studies have shown it didn't impact violence much at all ..........then, when faced with that, refused to discuss it

I don't think you'll fall into that KarmaPolice - but yes, after Beto went into his Govt confiscation tirade and the crowds roared? At least they're telling the truth and nobody can deny bans and confiscation IS the goal of the Democratic Party in many ways

 
Stealthycat said:
we've talked around some on addressing violence ..... but almost always it reverts back to more regulations, restrictions, bans and even confiscations on law abiding gun owners and right now, specifically, semi-auto rifles that are rarely used in violence

its absolutely has to do with what you said - look at -fish ..... wanting to talk about the assault weapons ban and them totally ignore that many studies have shown it didn't impact violence much at all ..........then, when faced with that, refused to discuss it

I don't think you'll fall into that KarmaPolice - but yes, after Beto went into his Govt confiscation tirade and the crowds roared? At least they're telling the truth and nobody can deny bans and confiscation IS the goal of the Democratic Party in many ways
Click to expand...
more lies and deflection.   I have posted two separate studies showing that in the period from 1994 to 2004 the number of fatalities from mass shootings was lower than the period before and after.   I never claimed anything else. 

I never claimed that a restriction on assault weapons had an effect on handgun violence or any other gun violence, so your studies about a different subject are just an irrelevant deflection.   You seriously can't go a single post without lies, logical fallacies or deflection.   

Now run along and lie about how I want to ban guns again.   

 
-fish- said:
more lies and deflection.   I have posted two separate studies showing that in the period from 1994 to 2004 the number of fatalities from mass shootings was lower than the period before and after.   I never claimed anything else. 

I never claimed that a restriction on assault weapons had an effect on handgun violence or any other gun violence, so your studies about a different subject are just an irrelevant deflection.   You seriously can't go a single post without lies, logical fallacies or deflection.   

Now run along and lie about how I want to ban guns again.   
Click to expand...


so the links/studies I posted you are saying are irrelevant and/or you don't like the sources or something like that I guess? 

not just the facts presented, but there are far more things in motion than just the assault weapons ban in 1994 .... crimes/violence had been going down anyway, as well as other things that could be simply a better economy, job growth, growing police forces .... 

I doubt you'll address it though - because once again, you're deflecting from questions - why do you do that ? too hard to answer? 

 
Stealthycat said:
so the links/studies I posted you are saying are irrelevant and/or you don't like the sources or something like that I guess? 

not just the facts presented, but there are far more things in motion than just the assault weapons ban in 1994 .... crimes/violence had been going down anyway, as well as other things that could be simply a better economy, job growth, growing police forces .... 

I doubt you'll address it though - because once again, you're deflecting from questions - why do you do that ? too hard to answer? 
Click to expand...
They are irrelevant to whether the laws in place from 1994-2004 were successful in reducing the number of fatalities from mass shootings, which is the question I asked you.   

If your premise were true, all gun violence would have dropped similarly.  It didn't.   Your deflection failed again.  

Honestly, at this point you just make me sad.   

 
we already know there is no "gun" violence ... no more so than car violence, knife violence or anything else

now, murders have been decreasing steadily for decades, the 1994-2004 time frame was no different

mass shootings? define that ... 2 or more people? schools? etc 

I'm not deflecting - I showed you a link and multiple studies that the assault weapons ban as it was called did nothing much at all - 

 
Stealthycat said:
we've talked around some on addressing violence ..... but almost always it reverts back to more regulations, restrictions, bans and even confiscations on law abiding gun owners and right now, specifically, semi-auto rifles that are rarely used in violence

its absolutely has to do with what you said - look at -fish ..... wanting to talk about the assault weapons ban and them totally ignore that many studies have shown it didn't impact violence much at all ..........then, when faced with that, refused to discuss it

I don't think you'll fall into that KarmaPolice - but yes, after Beto went into his Govt confiscation tirade and the crowds roared? At least they're telling the truth and nobody can deny bans and confiscation IS the goal of the Democratic Party in many ways
Click to expand...
Sure it can be part of their goal and platform, what I am arguing is that your use of "only" is very disingenuous and misleading.   I highly doubt that even the evil Beto is for ONLY doing this, and not for any programs that address mental illness, the economy, education, etc..  You know - all the other things that even you point to as being a part of the problem.  

Just because somebody suggests looking at guns as part of the solution it doesn't mean that this is the only thing they are for or are suggesting.  

 
Stealthycat said:
we already know there is no "gun" violence ... no more so than car violence, knife violence or anything else
Click to expand...
This is an outright lie.  Also a logical fallacy and a deflection.  Trifecta!!!

now, murders have been decreasing steadily for decades, the 1994-2004 time frame was no different

thid is also a defection and a lie, since the question was limited to mass shootings.

mass shootings? define that ... 2 or more people? schools? etc 

deflection, but we’ve gone over it at least a dozen times in this thread  I’ll go with the FBI definition since it makes statistics more consistent f

I'm not deflecting - I showed you a link and multiple studies that the assault weapons ban as it was called did nothing much at all - 

another lie.
Click to expand...
It must be sad being so afraid all the time and not being able to respond to any fact without resorting to lying.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkeye21 said:
It makes me laugh, the amount of people who are still upset with ****'s and refuse to buy anything from them now.  I honestly had no idea they even sold guns until they decided to stop selling them.  They act as if their rights were taken away because a business decided not to sell something anymore.
Click to expand...
I was pretty upset when McDonalds stopped selling their orange drink. 

 
Apple Jack said:
Wait, what's this now?
Click to expand...
Seriously. Something worth discussing. 

When i was in high school a friend of mine worked at mcdonalds. We used to play basketball in the summer and everybody would be waiting for him to show up after his shift. He would bring some of the syrup. We had one of those big orange coolers with a spout ready to go. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
1K
tymarsas
T
GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
582
(HULK)
(HULK)
E
Taking Politics Out of Public Schools
Replies
37
Views
882
MAC_32
MAC_32

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top